From: elektra <onelektra@gmx.net>
To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking
<b.a.t.m.a.n@open-mesh.net>
Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] a proposal
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:51:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200709141351.43182.onelektra@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <32455.85.41.146.90.1189767047.squirrel@krisma.oltrelinux.com>
Hi Antonio -
your suggestion sounds reasonable and is worth thinking about. However I think
this issue will become less important with B.A.T.M.A.N.-IV since it will
massively improve the routing metric. I think it is fair enough that a
gateway client will unilaterally choose the gateway - the number of OGMs
received should provide enough information for the client to choose the right
gateway.
cu elektra
> A client node take its decision about chosing a gateway in a unilateral
> way, that is chosing gateway on a ranking basis (or wathever else)
> checking the path "node-->gateway" or "node-->hop-->gateway" (also if the
> second is not always preferred, chosing a poor link "node-->gateway"
> rather then best links "node-->hop-->gateway").
>
> Presuming the node has a bouquet of canditate gateways: we can think to
> use an udp packet polling the candidate gateways and asking them "how you
> see me?" so the the node itself can obtain a path evaluation computed at
> gateway side and not only at node side.
> For example
> presuming node A can chose among gateways G1 and G2 (the candidate
> gateways) it will make its choice upon path evaluation:
>
> A --> hops --> G1
> A --> hops --> G1
> where [hops] can be also 0 (no hops between A and Gn)
>
> and computing OGMs coming from neighboors.
>
> Well, node A can send two udp packet (same format as OGM but different
> op-code in payload||different dest port) to G1 and G2 asking to send their
> path evaluation like "G1 --> hops --> A" evaluation (received from
> candidate G1) and "G2 --> hops --> A" evaluation (received from candidate
> G2). In this way node A has a more clear vision about the entire path A
> <--> G_candidate and can take a more serious decision.
>
> Using udp requests we introduce low latency than tcp and with a separate
> thread on gateway (with a poor resources consumpion) we can manage this
> task without effetcing the main.
>
> What are you thoughts about?
>
> --
> Antonio
>
> _______________________________________________
> B.A.T.M.A.N mailing list
> B.A.T.M.A.N@open-mesh.net
> https://list.open-mesh.net/mm/listinfo/b.a.t.m.a.n
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-14 11:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-13 6:08 [B.A.T.M.A.N.] translation of batman-adv 唐鼎
2007-09-13 11:12 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] terra-net (Mesh im Handy) thomasasta
2007-09-14 6:46 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] translation of batman-adv Simon Wunderlich
2007-09-14 7:11 ` 唐鼎
2007-09-14 8:03 ` Simon Wunderlich
2007-09-14 10:30 ` ??
2007-09-14 10:50 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] a proposal a.anselmi
2007-09-14 11:51 ` elektra [this message]
2007-09-14 11:32 ` [B.A.T.M.A.N.] translation of batman-adv Simon Wunderlich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200709141351.43182.onelektra@gmx.net \
--to=onelektra@gmx.net \
--cc=b.a.t.m.a.n@open-mesh.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox